Comments

Biofuels from Cyanobacteria and algae are helpful to combat climate change. Biofuels from crops are counterproductive. Presently there are hopeful projects, but have yet to be proven practical on an industrial scale. Read more

As usual from the green side, not one word about the ongoing population explosion. Its quite simple, if the population doubles then one thing is sure, consumption and therefore pollution increases, in fact due to upward aspirations the chances are it more than doubles Read more

I agree completely. World population growth is the underlying problem that has to be addressed. We are still adding around 70 million people to this planet a year. Even here in the United States the government rarely addresses this problem. In fact people still get a significant tax credit from both the federal and most state governments each year which equates to something like a few thousand dollars per year. It's insane! Of course for some reason it is still believed that population growth equates to economic growth when millions of jobs each year around the world are being automated. The whole system is set up to fail and the two main areas where this failure is silently being absorbed is in the increasing social inequality that we're seeing world wide and environmental degradation of all Earth's ecosystems. Read more

I agreee with you basically, I don't believe carbon metrics either, because those prices aren't reliable. But there're too many questions in my head. What is the right pace at imposing taxes for harmful activities? If it's too slow the Earth dies, if it's too fast, our economy, society plunges. At proper pace it can be a huge incentive for economies like Paul Krugman wrote, and for instance we can breathe clean air. Secondly enviromental tasks're global. How can we prevent that politists will not compete with loose enviromental laws, low green taxes? Because summits're almost nothings at this times. Read more

"Government control of the majority of individuals who can't be trusted to make the right decisions" - Time and again, ad f'in nauseum, as it were, technocrats fail to recognize that this philosophy can only lead to violent (and successful) revolution by that controlled majority, and an end to any progress on those very issues. Failure of persuasion cannot lead to possession by other means.

"....usher in a new era of sustainable growth ..."Not the only place you mention growth and sustainable in the same breath. But our current problems are alnost entirely because few if any can understand that growth CAN NEVER BE SUSTAINABLE" it is an oxymoron. The growth myth has been peddled for so long; and no-one in government seems to realise that NOTHING can keep on growing. A minor adjustment to calling it "sustainable" will make little difference. Ask a politician "How will we know when we (the economy) has grown enough?" and you will get a blank look. It is not green growth which has its limits it is growth per se. And until this becomes generally realised we will continue along the slippery slope. Now an INCREASE in green technology, farming et al - THAt would be somethng worth fighting for Read more

If we want to “recognize the constraints that the “green economy” places on thought and action,” then I suggest that we provide some breathing space. By this I mean that we should immediately “price carbon” (and other GHG) worldwide.

The transformation to the level of “political will” required to become sustainable will require time. Time, climate science says is in short supply. In Ted Glick’s “Open Letter to Naomi Klein” (http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/17/naomi-klein-this-changes-every-thing/ ), his basic position is that the priority for addressing global warming is so high that we must relegate many very worthwhile social, economic, and environmental goals below stopping global warming.

In a work that parallels your, I suggest that readers check out “Economics for a Full World” by Herman Daly June 2015 at http://www.greattransition.org/publication/economics-for-a-full-world#figure-5 Read more

The word "property" is never mentioned in the article. Yet, no one will be interested in organic farming from the farming end without absolute assurance of rights to retain the long-term (NOT seasonal) value of their production, and no one will give up their personal transport, paid for at great personal expense.

The absence of concern with private property rights, while overarching vague "communitarian rights" rule...must be frankly Eurocentric. No African or Asian will give up their land to any communal interest, except those who have failed to produce on their own.

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.